On 2/18/2016 8:11 AM, Thompson, David wrote: > Sort of like the kernel Linux comes with everything all bundled > together? I'm not enamored with systemd, but I find argument ad UNIX
This is a non-sequitur. Linux is not UNIX, and whether or not the Linux kernel follows the UNIX philosophy is of no relevance to whether or not systemd follows that philosophy. > philosophy to be pretty weak. Some of the most useful software I have > ever used is often accused of violating this philosophy. I don't > think the "UNIX way" is the end-all be-all of software design. I did not mean to suggest that it is. My intent was to describe the fundamentals of the UNIX philosophy and how systemd does not follow them. Microsoft's way does have benefits over the UNIX way. Making most of the OS components a collection of DLLs that are loaded on demand by svchost allows all of those components to share physical resources thus reducing overall system overhead. Which is to say that systemd may have its place but I personally am reluctant to accept it in part because of Poettering's disingenuous act. I would be less critical about systemd if its lead developer were more honest. Which is not to say that I would be uncritical of systemd, just that my criticisms would be more focused on the technical aspects. -- Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
